It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Crop Circles...with some actual evidence

page: 10
111
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
I'd like to add to the debate about details, many of which haven't even been mentioned -- like stalks on a few formations bent at right angles, way above ground level. But, I digress.

First, have a look at this:

Why Real Crop Circles Can't Be Hoaxed:
theconversation.org...

I think there's some question about the magnetic balls, where that report came into question after I did this and I don't have the password to change it.

Also, I hope you like this commentary about my movie and then some, from my favorite physicist, who keeps his focus on the bigger picture:

"Albert Einstein once remarked that for the human there is no more powerful feeling than that of the 'mysterious.' In fact, he was convinced this feeling for the mysterious was the cradle for all works of science, art, and religion. In light of Einstein's conviction, one might ask: 'What is the opposite of a feeling for the mysterious?' The opposite would be the sense that one understands it all. The opposite would be the feeling that one is in possession of a system that explains all the phenomena in the universe. For such a person, the universe loses its appeal for it becomes something we don't really need to pay attention to. The universe becomes an exemplification of a theory that one has already understood. No real surprises are possible, only the working out of a logical system through time. When a feeling for the mysterious is lost, one become s vulnerable to the various fundamentalisms plaguing our planet, each one with its passionate certainty that it has all the answers while every other system is just superstition.

"In moments of stress and breakdown, there is a powerful drive in us to acquire answers and explanations. Certainly in our own time when we are dismantling ecosystems around the planet and deconstructing the stable climate upon which our civilization is based, we feel a deep need to know what is real and what is good and how to proceed. This need can become so great we are liable to latch onto one of these simplistic pseudo-explanations just to quell the feelings of fear and doom surfacing in us. 'What On Earth?' does not provide any such simplistic explanations. This restraint is one of its greatest achievements. By insisting that the Crop Circles are beyond any easy explanation, 'What On Earth?' enables us to make peace with living in the ambiguity of not knowing. This ability to live with ambiguity is related to a sense for the mysterious and together these two may be the most important factors for deep creativity to take place. At the very least, we need to realize that an embrace of ambiguity is a form of humility when confronted by the magnificent complexity of nature.

"One of the great benefits of viewing "What On Earth?" is the feeling one can get of wading into the mysterious. Through its balanced and wide-open approach to the phenomena of Crop Circles, the film has the power to ease us out of some of the prior certainties we might have had. "What On Earth?" explores and celebrates the fact of the existence of these designs. And as we are guided into this reflection, we find ourselves considering new ideas about the nature of our universe. We begin to imagine that things might be different than we thought. We might even begin to release ourselves from some of the tired explanations lodged into our minds by the media. But most important of all, as we view the film we might even begin to feel stunned by the simple fact that here we are in the midst of this overwhelming mystery, the universe."

-- Brian Swimme, mathematical cosmologist specializing in the evolution of the universe, author of "The Universe is a Green Dragon"




posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Its no secret that the government and media has; and will continue to keep things from us-The People.

Using whatever power "they" have, political and financial pressure, brute force, dis-info, or secrecy are all tools of the trade.

One has to wonder if there is a reliable scientist than can actually do some field work in this area....


Two main topics in my post, Dr, levengood-blt and The Discovery of Thirteen Short-Lived Radionuclide.....in my mind...have NOT been de'bunked per say, but rather raise valid questions for MORE RESEARCH.

Bottom line. More Research is a must.

My two cents



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Hey folks , I have been following along with this and also another thread. On the other thread we got to thinking or wondering if any of these circles happen to reside on "LayLines", and would that have any impact or clue of their meanings. Also perhaps the dates they were placed and if they coincide with anything etc.

I use cropcircleconnector.com, and I was going to go back to last years circles and start mapping them out on google earth then lay a map of laylines over them, but I am finding myself a bit um under techno for it!

Since you all seem to be interested in the scientific side of it I was wondering if we could recruit a little help. I bow down to the master puter gurus out there!

Anyhow if you are interested in helping, or curious in how this might turn out, you can join us over here on this thread : other cropcircle thread

or can keep it here for all I care. I am just curious if we might come up with something.

Just trying to put great minds together and I know how much some of you like puzzles!



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I hate satellite internet ARRRRRrrrrr

Thanks CropCircleQueen,yigsstarhouse and atlasastro for the posts, but can't access the new info you've both posted until 2morrow



[edit on 1-6-2010 by Software_Pyrate]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Software_Pyrate
 


While checking out the new crop circles in Italy over the last couple of days I found this page on the Italian site that has a link to several additional research papers. Some of the same stuff but new stuff as well. I didn't see any scientific breakthroughs, but some great articles.

I found the page put together by Stephen Panizza with a chronological list of crop circles going back hundreds of years including documented stories to be a good read.

Use the Google translator if needed.

Cropfiles.it.com



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Thank you so much! Im a big fan of crop circles and finaly some solid evidence



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by CropCircleQueen
I'd like to add to the debate about details, many of which haven't even been mentioned -- like stalks on a few formations bent at right angles, way above ground level. But, I digress.

I have, its called phototropism and gravitropism. BLT mention it too. No one can differentiate between that and the "claimed anomaly".


First, have a look at this:

Why Real Crop Circles Can't Be Hoaxed:
theconversation.org...

Your link on page 2 of the booklet gives us no links to the authors.
Page 3 gives us two links.
One to BLT and the other to this site here.
www.xstreamscience.org...

I think there's some question about the magnetic balls, where that report came into question after I did this and I don't have the password to change it.

The link actually attacks BLT and the Magnetic Balls.
Infact, it supports that claims made by hoaxers.
In particular, is supports the claims of Rob Irving.
Your link actually comes down pretty hard on BLT.

Of all the evidence of preternatural activity associated with crop formations, the most intriguing was a deposit that became known as the H-Glaze. In 1993, two crop circle researchers, Peter Sørensen and Busty Taylor, noticed a distinctive area in a recently harvested field......they noticed that there was a brown deposit on both the ground and on the flattened remains of the crop......The researchers collected samples and it was quickly noticed that the deposit responded to a magnetic field - an observation that led to it being given the name H-glaze. Some samples were sent to Levengood in America who later published a report1.


BLT published this on that Crop Circle in JSE.
www.scientificexploration.org...

In which they claimed that this was responsible for the material found( note, it is the same explanation and claim for the other anomalies like the node bending and elongated nodes, cavities etc.)

Acknowledgments
We thank Peter Sorensen for his well documented field sampling and obser-
vations, and Linda Moulton Howe for coordinating the sample collections.



Formation Hypothesis
In Cherhill, England, the meteoric dust was confined to separate smaller
swirls within the larger swirls. Previous discussion on possible causes of crop
circles has centered on a hypothetical plasma vortex comprised of tightly
swirling ions
of the same diameter as the flattened, swirled area of the field
(Meaden, 1991). Meteor trails are so highly ionized that they can be detected
by radar (DeAngelis, 1988) and used to enhance radio communications. The
structure of these ionized trails is still not well understood, but known to be
turbulent (Gibbs, 1983). Plasma processes are commonly seen in the ionos-
phere within the aurora, many of which are spiral.

www.scientificexploration.org...

But your source that you linked to the booklet actually obtained a samples from both BLT's sources and from the hoaxer who claimed he made the circle and put the material their.
Page Three from your booklet, link to "Magnetic Particles".

I first became aware of this case in 1999 and, discovering that a few samples remained in the possession of its discoverers, requested that they should be made available for further scientific testing. Taylor supplied me with one small fragment but Sørensen kindly gave me all of the few remaining samples in his possession. I examined these together with one that I borrowed from Nick Riley (the second sample).



In 1994, Rob Irving and John Lundberg collaborated during the 'Fe3 Project' to mount a group exhibition in the Agency Gallery, London. One exhibit was a plastic bottle containing what was claimed to be material used to create the H-Glaze. Recently, I managed to obtained a sample of this material for investigation.


The author from the link your provided us observed both Irving and BLT samples, concluding:

These beads appeared to be identical to those observed in the H-Glaze by both myself and Levengood. The similarity between this powder and the H-Glaze was striking and, from this initial and purely visual assessment, this material appears to be identical to that found in the 1993 deposit.

The most convincing evidence for heat being involved in the creation of the H-Glaze was the presence of rounded beads of iron. It was my initial assessment that they must have formed into rounded shapes by surface tension when in the liquid phase and this is still true. It was this unusual characteristic of the powder that had added significantly to the credibility of the H-Glaze. If the powder had been produced by, say, grinding or filing, as had been suggested, then the mundane origins of the H-Glaze would have been obvious from the start.
www.xstreamscience.org...
At the end of the above, the author points out that the mundane nature of the H-glaze would have been obvious previously had it not been for Irving apparently saying he put "fillings" in the field.

The author of he site you linked in your booklet on page three under the title of "magnetic Particles", goes onto source the material, how it was made and even connects it neatly to Circle hoaxer Irving.

The powder in Rob Irving's possession is a very specialised product. It is not readily obtainable. Where could such material have come from and how did it find its way into the field at Yatesbury?

There are several processes whereby iron can be reduced in this way. However, there are only a few that can produce iron with the requisite purity.

One possibility is gas atomization which is used commercially to produce the largest tonnage of metal powders.
www.xstreamscience.org...


On Berk's original label was typed the name and address of the original purchaser of this powder: Clarendon Laboratory, Parks Road, Oxford. This is part of Oxford University.

[In the early 90's, crop circle researchers were claiming that they could use magnetic anomalies to verify the authenticity of formations. Rob Irving stated that his motive for laying this deposit was to test these claims and Jim Schnabel, who was then at Oxford University, had sent him this iron dust in the belief that it would be suitable for this purpose. Paradoxically, it was not the magnetic properties of the deposit that first attracted investigators but its appearance and the most inexplicable aspect, at least for me, was not the presence of the iron but rather its source.


It goes on further into the detail.
In the end, this is what is has to say about BLT Magnetic Particles(that you link to your "mysteries".)

It is curious that the plasma vortex hypothesis, which was largely discredited and abandoned by its creator in the early 90s, should still find favour with BLT. Likewise, it is hard to understand the fascination with meteoric dust as a litmus test for the authenticity of crop circles. If the scientific community, or anyone with reasonable acuity, is to be persuaded that these demonstrably flawed and speculative theories can, in any way, explain the appearance of crop circles or ferrous deposits, then it will take a more credible argument than that proffered by W.C. Levengood and John A. Burke.
www.xstreamscience.org...

Thank you for providing this material.
It is extremely critical of BLT, their studies and their claims surrounding CC anomalies.
It actually demystifies many claims and actually gives us an explanation, which was actually Humans.
It further highlites the nature of BLT, and their claims, as incredibly dubious.
The man cited in the study, as the hoaxer responsible, is Rob Irving from the Circlemakers.


"Albert Einstein once remarked that for the human there is no more powerful feeling than that of the 'mysterious.'
Did Albert rely only his feelings to test and describe the true nature of things?

Albert actually said this:The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science.
Albert Einstein

But he also said this:
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.
Albert Einstein

A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
Albert Einstein

Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either.
Albert Einstein

If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor.
Albert Einstein

It was the experience of mystery - even if mixed with fear - that engendered religion.
Albert Einstein




posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


I'm not sure why you spend so much energy trying to debunk all the evidence.

As a read through your above post, no where do I get any scientific proof for or against.

Sure there are flaws in some of the studies. And there are those that can find any way to discredit someone else's research.

But with all the overwhelming consistant stories from so many researchers and observers around the world something extra ordinary is going on.

It just shows that more research is needed.



[edit on 2-6-2010 by Julie Washington]



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Hi S_P.
Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Originally posted by Software_Pyrate
Originally posted by atlasastro

[

For example, lets compare another supernatural mystery within contemporary culture. The mystery surrounding Jesus Christ....

Bad form
.....No need to bring Jesus Christ in to this

I used the comparison with another supernatural event so as to point out the significance of cause in relation to any meaning or messages and/or people that advocate those messages and meanings.
If you cannot read the posts objectively and reflect on the context for its specific purpose, that is not my problem nor is it evidence of any kind of "form" good or bad.


However, I Have read the Original thoroughly. And being open-minded to both sides. I believe I can find why there paper was such heavily scrutinized, and thus pulled.(forgive me if this is in the Mufon Journal_internet acting up).

It was pulled by the authors because they were wrong. They say they were wrong, the show why they are wrong and they have not, since 1994, tried to correct that.


2 big loose ends so to speak,
Control had two specific elements that were in the samples. This however, does not mean there findings are inaccurate at all,has been addressed and they offer suggestions..
It does state that the finding are inaccurate. That is why they withdrew the paper.
What they try and do is suggest why they are wrong, by trying to say that they are actually right.



Assuming this is plausible, how do we explain the presence of the gold-194 in the control? Consider the fact that the mercury-194 has a half-life of 520 years. If the field had had crop circles in earlier years, the mercury-194 could have been spread around the field by wind, erosion, and plowing.

Here they actually try and claim that the reason they were wrong is because the "test" they used to differentiate "real" circles from their controls is because the controls were in fact "real" crop circles in earlier years.
But the point of the test is to form a process that shows real circles.
Think about that.
Their tests failed to show real circles because the controls showed the same elements.
So they "suggest" that it may be previous circles!
Do they check historically for previous circles, do they change sites?
Do they try and check other circles or fields?
No.
All they do is suggest.


They also offer more radical scenarios, this to me, is most likely. They go on to say that more TESTING NEEDS TO BE DONE.
More testing needs to be done, because their tests are useless. Which was why they withdrew them. In 1994. since then they have done nothing.


As for the interpretation of the "Raw" data...


In addition, our interpretation of the data from the gamma spectrometer needs to be confirmed by similar findings from independent laboratories. Spectroscopic data is extremely complex, and its interpretation is inevitably a matter of judgment. But our interpretation of the data has convinced several of our associates in Oak Ridge. We believe it will stand; and we would be glad to show the raw data to those who wish to examine it for themselves.
They withdrew the study because of the raw data.
Who cares what their associates said in 1994. They did not have the confidence to publish. They admit they were wrong. They have not done any research since 1994.


Yes, Questions have been raised but I do not think they have been put to rest....not quite yet.

The only people who haven't put it to rest are those who actually think these support something mysteriously making CC's.
What part of their admissions regarding the invalid nature of their claims, their withdrawal of their research and their subsequent 16 year absence form this topic and research do you not understand?


The thing I take most from this paper(that has been retracted) is that
MORE TESTING NEEDS TO BE DONE to either confirm or deny there findings...

There are no finding. They withdrew their claims. The did not publish anything.


Its the fact that the isotopes "Have been detected" that needs to be discussed further and not "where" they were detected ( that is used for "tearing down" )for there to be more validity to their argument.

I disagree S_P.
If the claim surrounding these isotopes is that they are result of what ever is making CC's. Then the "where" is critical to the study.


I enjoy your posts atlasastro...but I think their research deserves more than what yer giving it.
The authors tell me what the research deserves.


Yes, After Mainstream media throw every possible error into the pot....a lot of field data can be considered erroneous in most experiments.
The errors where found by the authors after they were alerted to the fact that they needed to look at the raw data.


I believe if they were to know of the scrutiny that lied ahead, they would've covered there asses a little better, and tried to account for less variables. IMHO.

The nature of any research is that scrutiny should be encouraged and sought. It is only through this process, can we get the best possible results.


Whats important is...rare isotopes were detected.
Again, you seem to miss the point of the study. The point was to support a claim that the isotopes were rare.
The controls and the raw data show empirically, that this was not the case. That is why they withdrew the paper and their claims.


The Bottom line is,
MORE RESEARCH NEEDS TO BE DONE.
Yes it does.
But ask yourself S_P.
Why is it that those within the CC community still parade stuff like this around!
BLT is over 10 years old, these studies regarding the isotopes are even older.
Why is the scientific research so poor? Considering so many people claim that they have been "studying" the topic for 20 years?
How is it these people can organize Movies, and Documentaries, Conferences and Lectures, Tours, Photographic exhibitions, Calenders, Research groups and website forums and apparently this is in an effort to "inform" the world of this phenomena.

Yet they still rely on BLT, and 17 year old papers on isotopes that the authors withdrew.



If one takes a single bucket of rock from a mine and finds gold in it, one is well justified in doing further digging.

The reality is though S_P.
That no gold has been found.
People are not digging, instead they are perpetuating the myth that scientific evidence supports the claims being made by those in the CC community.
You thread is proof of that.
At the start of this thread you considered BLT as actual evidence.

This is were we are at:
We have no evidence to support the claims surrounding CC anomalies.
All we have is suggestions, assumptions, flawed and in some cases fraudulent research.
Commentaries and "articles".

When you say we need more research.
Why do you not include the research that contradicts or refutes the claims made?
Because there is a lot of that.
Research is research S_P.
You cannot rest on a bias that simply supports "mysterious" anomalies.
If you have an open mind, as you often claim, then you must also consider ALL the research that has been done regardless of what it finds.
www.siue.edu...

Crop circles are also shown to be aligned with some of
England's principal motorways. These findings cast doubt on paranormal theories
explaining crop circles as the result of natural forces such as plasma vortices, indicating
instead that some form of intelligence (human or otherwise) is the principal agent.

This one has a shot a BLT with its reference to plasma vortices but I like the open minded approach in its suggestion towards human or otherwise intelligence.
This study is excellent in that it shows significant clusters of CC's.


Quite clearly, the view
that human agency is the principal cause and that crop circles are a form of sacred landscape artistry
is an ontological claim that is based on a mundane perspective of reality, even though such an
explanation might fully accord with the empirical evidence.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Julie Washington
reply to post by atlasastro
 


I'm not sure why you spend so much energy trying to debunk all the evidence.

What evidence?

What I am trying to do is test the nature of the claims relating to what is presented to me as evidence.
Then I can ascertain if it is in fact what it claims to be.

Who cares what you are sure or unsure about in relation to the energy I spend.
I spend my energy trying to find the truth.
If that makes you unsure, that is not my problem.


As a read through your above post, no where do I get any scientific proof for or against.

For or against what?


Sure there are flaws in some of the studies. And there are those that can find any way to discredit someone else's research.
There are flaws in all of the studies presented as evidence.
Not only are there flaws, in some cases, anomalies are blatantly manufactured. Sources and components related to the methods and models are assumed and not known. Conclusions are then made from these and then presented as factual evidence.
In the "Isotope" study you linked, you failed to mention that the authors withdrew their work and their claims.
This is not a flaw, it was an admission of error and a reversal of any findings and claims.
I did not debunk that, your source did.
If you had spent the energy trying to ascertain the veracity of the research you accepted as evidence, you would have known that. But you did not, and you have the nerve to ask me why I spend so much energy here "debunking" things. It is because people like you don't do it at all, rather you perpetuate material as evidence whilst complaining about people who merely take the time to consider the material put before them.


But with all the overwhelming consistant stories from so many researchers and observers around the world something extra ordinary is going on.

How many people have religious visions.
How many people have seen Elvis.
How many people claimed they saw Big Foot.
How many people claim they saw the Lochness Monster.

There is something extra ordinary going on.
CC's are great.
They are beautiful.
They look amazing.
They are patterns in fields.
Geometric patterns.
Art.

I would ask you to look closely at the individuals making those claims.
Because I have.

People make amazing claims all the time.
As humans, we have a long history of people making all sorts of claims regarding supernatural events. In fact, it is present in our entire history of civilization.

What makes these CC claims any more significant then other claims?
What about all the claims relating to them being Man Made?
What about all the groups that have claimed they have made circles that contradict the claims made by crop circle researchers who claim that they could not be man made?
Why do you present just some claims as evidence, and not all the claims regarding CC's.
Can you explain this Bias?



It just shows that more research is needed.

Of course it does.
Because all we have is absolute rubbish at the moment.

The fact that you need more research is an admission that any claim regarding something "mysterious" or impossible for humans to make, has no support what so ever besides those that accept that conclusion already on faith or belief. Kind of like a religion.

Whilst there is overwhelming evidence of mans ability to make these CC's, in the entire history of the Crop circle phenomena, no other cause is known or shown. Ever.
Now, isn't that a mystery.


[edit on 2/6/10 by atlasastro]



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
More research for your disection. This research article was done by Russian researchers Natalya Solodovnik & Anatoly Borisovich Solodovnik.

It is a long and in depth study of elongated nodes and causes. Effects of environment, air, wind, soil and rock samples.

This researcher lables genuine (unexplained) CC's as "miraculous" and others as "man made".

"Implications.

1. In the mature plants, the outer shell of the stem nodes may have sufficient strength to withstand without changing the shape and size of the instantaneous increase in pressure differential between the intracellular content (turgor) and external pressure on the cell walls stem node.

In this case, the only source of irreversible shift stalk is the effect of a gust of wind, propagating along the trajectories of micro, which bends the stem to the first node (permanent bend or kink).

If you have any miraculous image of such curved with a break in the first node of plants, flattened stems in figure will not have second, third, fourth and fifth nodes of elongation and irreversible bends nodes swelling of nodes and the holes in the shells of the destruction of sites of the plant.

According to the above-described conditional differences such miraculous drawing will rasssmatrivatsya as handmade.

Consequently, the application of the above-described conditional differences may overstate the number of man-made drawings "crop circles" and underestimates number of miraculous images "crop circles".


And it does reference the BTL research inconsistancies and other skeptical opinions.

Edit to add link:
MECHANISM Stem lodging of plants and Miraculous "crop circles"

This is in Russian - use the Google translator for easy reading.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by Julie Washington]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Julie Washington
More research for your disection. This research article was done by Russian researchers Natalya Solodovnik & Anatoly Borisovich Solodovnik.

It is a long and in depth study of elongated nodes and causes. Effects of environment, air, wind, soil and rock samples.

This researcher lables genuine (unexplained) CC's as "miraculous" and others as "man made".

"Implications.

1. In the mature plants, the outer shell of the stem nodes may have sufficient strength to withstand without changing the shape and size of the instantaneous increase in pressure differential between the intracellular content (turgor) and external pressure on the cell walls stem node.

In this case, the only source of irreversible shift stalk is the effect of a gust of wind, propagating along the trajectories of micro, which bends the stem to the first node (permanent bend or kink).

If you have any miraculous image of such curved with a break in the first node of plants, flattened stems in figure will not have second, third, fourth and fifth nodes of elongation and irreversible bends nodes swelling of nodes and the holes in the shells of the destruction of sites of the plant.

According to the above-described conditional differences such miraculous drawing will rasssmatrivatsya as handmade.

Consequently, the application of the above-described conditional differences may overstate the number of man-made drawings "crop circles" and underestimates number of miraculous images "crop circles".


And it does reference the BTL research inconsistancies and other skeptical opinions.

Edit to add link:
MECHANISM Stem lodging of plants and Miraculous "crop circles"

This is in Russian - use the Google translator for easy reading.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by Julie Washington]


I'm using Google translate but its leaving out big chunks of the article...its a pretty long web page, maybe why, i don't know.



On the other hand...that cropfiles.it is a pretty extensive site, if ya don't mind the translating, but something new none the less, good find


[edit on 3-6-2010 by Software_Pyrate]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


I am flattered that you spend so much time on me



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Software_Pyrate
 


Ahh, schucks!
Don't take it personally S_P.
This has nothing to do with you, and everything to do with my passion for this topic on ATS.
I think it is obvious that I am very familiar with the topic and that I seriously consider with depth, all the material posted by other members. Would you expect less S_P?

What I think is most significant, while we are on the subject of how much time we spend on posts and what have you, is that none of you have explained why my concerns regarding the "evidence" you present are incorrect, unfair or unwarranted.
Why is that?

Currently, the facts are that the material supplied by many posters in relation to scientific research is rather lacking in substance and quality, in which case I have denied the ignorance found within.
I expect that I will continue to behave in this manner despite who posts what and not in spite of who posts what.



Lets not forget that as much as I am a skeptic of claims and evidence, and that people may view this as "debunking". Those that accept the "claims" of "anomalies" and "mysterious" origins are themselves skeptical of mundane explanations and they are attempting to debunk the claims of those that explain this phenomena and anomalies with these mundane explanations.



Because, I think it is safe to say that BLT show no alternative explanation. Not only is it safe for me to say that, BLT specifically state that they speculate and merely suggest, as does Haselhoff.
Again, the two authors of the failed Isotope study also make suggestions.
I don't want suggestions.
I am here because the OP claimed he had evidence.


S_P, have you considered the problem I mention concerning the fact that all the images of 'bent" or "elongated" or "blown" crop nodes only ever show one node on the stem?
I can explain this with natural causes of photo and gravitropism.
How do you explain these "isolated nodes" on individual plants considering you have linked "studies" claiming electromagnetic or other(isotopes) elements?
Why are there no images of multiple "bent', "elongated" or "blown" nodes?

You really need to over come this problem is you are going to subscribe to any of these mysterious "energy" sources.

Thousands of circles have been made. You guys have got a hand full of tests over 10 years old, and these tests are seriously flawed, criticized by those within the CC community(Haselhoff is clear on the unscientific nature and the unsound methods of BLT) or have been withdrawn all together.

No wonder you need to have an "open mind" about the topic, because you have nothing to really base an informed opinion on. You merely have to be open to suggestion and assumptions and "witness testimony". etc.
Being open minded to possibility is one thing, basing a belief on what might be possible is another thing altogether.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 07:23 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Julie Washington
 


Thanks for the link.
Found this cool PDF.
In italian, translate and enjoy.
www.cropfiles.it...



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by Software_Pyrate
 


Ahh, schucks!
Don't take it personally S_P.
This has nothing to do with you, and everything to do with my passion for this topic on ATS.
I think it is obvious that I am very familiar with the topic and that I seriously consider with depth, all the material posted by other members. Would you expect less S_P?

What I think is most significant, while we are on the subject of how much time we spend on posts and what have you, is that none of you have explained why my concerns regarding the "evidence" you present are incorrect, unfair or unwarranted.
Why is that?

Currently, the facts are that the material supplied by many posters in relation to scientific research is rather lacking in substance and quality, in which case I have denied the ignorance found within.
I expect that I will continue to behave in this manner despite who posts what and not in spite of who posts what.



Lets not forget that as much as I am a skeptic of claims and evidence, and that people may view this as "debunking". Those that accept the "claims" of "anomalies" and "mysterious" origins are themselves skeptical of mundane explanations and they are attempting to debunk the claims of those that explain this phenomena and anomalies with these mundane explanations.



Because, I think it is safe to say that BLT show no alternative explanation. Not only is it safe for me to say that, BLT specifically state that they speculate and merely suggest, as does Haselhoff.
Again, the two authors of the failed Isotope study also make suggestions.
I don't want suggestions.
I am here because the OP claimed he had evidence.


S_P, have you considered the problem I mention concerning the fact that all the images of 'bent" or "elongated" or "blown" crop nodes only ever show one node on the stem?
I can explain this with natural causes of photo and gravitropism.
How do you explain these "isolated nodes" on individual plants considering you have linked "studies" claiming electromagnetic or other(isotopes) elements?
Why are there no images of multiple "bent', "elongated" or "blown" nodes?

You really need to over come this problem is you are going to subscribe to any of these mysterious "energy" sources.

Thousands of circles have been made. You guys have got a hand full of tests over 10 years old, and these tests are seriously flawed, criticized by those within the CC community(Haselhoff is clear on the unscientific nature and the unsound methods of BLT) or have been withdrawn all together.

No wonder you need to have an "open mind" about the topic, because you have nothing to really base an informed opinion on. You merely have to be open to suggestion and assumptions and "witness testimony". etc.
Being open minded to possibility is one thing, basing a belief on what might be possible is another thing altogether.




No sweat, I've got way thicker skin than you think I do..



If I may retort.

And you as well, only have "VERBAL" 10 year old criticisms to counter the "Evidence" I have presented.

You Have NOT presented ANY scientific studies that counter the posts' claims.

Verbal scrutiny from peers as how study's where conducted--YEs you have done.

Physical evidence in separate case studies to counter post claims--You have NOT done.

I can have a 100 people counter Global Warming theories as well.
But withiout some one actually going out there, ....well.......

Show me some case studies that counter the "Evidence". Do you have any physical evidence that counters the posts claims.? Or is all your ammo just TALK.

gravitropism. I disagree. It is an effect that occurs naturally over a period of time. Do you have any studies that have "evidence" on your behalf, that counters this post claims on irregular node elognation, cavity expulsion, in a CC made with in 24 hours, I think not.

Your next move would be to arguee that the time in which these CC's happpened is unclear-thus justifying your means.

While I have (easily)proven on numerous occasions of farmer's account of a new CC being there that was NOT there the night before, YOu Skep's arguee that the farmer is out to make money, that all of em are lying and not one of them can give an accurate acount for the time these CC's appered.

If you would lend some credence to the farmers, then your "theory" of gravitropism goes completely out the window- as that takes time to happen-mother nature and all.


Cavity expulsion - A node exploding on a plant due to extreme heat of some sort - Is not the work of wood and rope.
-Nothing Mystical there....

Node elongation- In access of 170% may happen naturally, but with a fare amount of time- Does not happen within 24-48 hours.-Is not the work of wood and rope.
-Nothing Mystical there....

So to reiterate. Where is the case studies that counter these claims as evidence-Or do all you have is just talk.

Any pictures, Any experiments, Anything.....other than hearsay?

Probly not



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Atlasastro:

I read the PDF file you linked to. Was there something new there I was suppose to learn? It looks like the rehashing of the same arguments regarding this limited samplings as not sufficient enough to present an undisputible hypothesis. (In their opinion basically)

I see no new field research to dispute or contradict their findings, but rather just critisism of their sampling techniques.

You state:
...have you considered the problem I mention concerning the fact that all the images of 'bent" or "elongated" or "blown" crop nodes only ever show one node on the stem?

I can explain this with natural causes of photo and gravitropism.

How do you explain these "isolated nodes" on individual plants considering you have linked "studies" claiming electromagnetic or other(isotopes) elements?

Why are there no images of multiple "bent', "elongated" or "blown" nodes?

Do you mean like these?






You state:
"Thousands of circles have been made. You guys have got a hand full of tests over 10 years old, and these tests are seriously flawed, criticized by those within the CC community(Haselhoff is clear on the unscientific nature and the unsound methods of BLT) or have been withdrawn all together.


How about we review more recent studies. Now I know you have a hard on for BLT research. But they do have more recent research to analyze.

PLANT ABNORMALITIES INDICATE PLASMA DISCHARGE
IN 2009 UK CROP CIRCLES

2009 Field Reports

There will be no need to point out the statement:
"Because in-depth sampling and subsequent intensive laboratory work was not carried out in 2009 we cannot be 100% certain that the visible plant changes we found are absolute proof these formations were genuine. But an educated estimate can be offered in several instances. '

Also:
"Whether it is the intensity level of the microwaves in any particular event, or the length of time involved in their discharge, or perhaps the angle of impact or the overall size and/or complexity of the plasma energy system itself which dictates in which instances tram-lines would function in this manner remains to be discovered."


  • More extensive research is needed
  • Research is ongoing
  • Anomolies DO exist that are unexplainable



And in celebration of this years Crop Circle identifed as Euler's Formula I change my signature:

"There are persons determined to believe and admit nothing what they see and touch; whatever you would prove to them by reasoning; be it ever so solid, they are disposed to suspect, unless you place it before their eyes. Letters of Euler."



[edit on 3-6-2010 by Julie Washington]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Software_Pyrate
 

I've always been searching for nuggets of truth on crop circles as well... They have become so elaborate and communicate some kind of essential, geometrical - mathematical information. However, since there have been a few moronic hoaxers to feed the TV networks, there has always been room for doubt about the rest.

Nevertheless, there was one a case in England (where these circles are apt to appear) that held me. A couple on an errand had walked past some undisturbed grain fields, and upon the same return path something like 10 minutes later, an elaborate crop circle pattern had been laid down in one of those fields, in daytime. No humans could possibly have made that pattern in that short time frame... So I kept on searching... (Story verifiable at www.lucypringle.co.uk... - Amazing crop circle photos from Lucy Pringle.)

Then I happened across this site, the Crop Circle Space Ship wiki:
www.cropcircleship.com...

Wow. This website makes clear conclusions that each circle is a component part of a total "blueprint" for an anti-gravity spacecraft engine design, for a seriously large star ship. (Don't laugh. Anti-gravity / electro-gravitic devices are already a fact. That much is proven, and can be found online everywhere.) The information is clearly repeated in patterns from circle to circle, each circle adding a bit more detail to the total puzzle.

In the wiki, the majority of crop circles have been evaluated - you can easily see the intelligent design and interlocking patterns, as if described in an engineering or physics textbook, with some patterns 'zooming in' on details. As an electrical engineer myself, it was all quite revealing, and quite believable. In fact, I had looked at most of the circles at Lucy Pringle's great site, and earlier remarked that one had looked to me like a microwave antenna design (I worked in a microwave antenna lab for a while), and guess what? The wiki describes that particular crop circle as the engine's main driver - the microwave source/amplifier. It's perfectly engineered for it, and they've already achieved lift in a prototype device using that exact pattern.

Go take a look at this and see if you might find yourself agreeing that these circles are conveying intelligent, mathematically precise information for an intelligent design OF SOMETHING -- AT LEAST! We may find ourselves flying in one of these things some day, if we get past our present troubles and limitations anyway.

These crop circles are evidenced to be made in only a few seconds time, with high electromagnetic forces involved and a water vapor mist persisting in the air a few feet above the ground for a short time afterward. These are made by a higher intelligence, that much is clear. What they are communicating is now clear. The question now has become to me: Why? And why now? We should be searching for that answer instead.

DreamVoyager



new topics

top topics



 
111
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join